Out-Of-Class #1 -- Every Rose Has Its Thorns ...

Overall to date, this class has performed very well. In many ways you have been ahead of my previous JRN 200 classes in terms of your demonstrated ability and pace at which you picked up new skills.

I'm sorry to say the first out-of-class story assignment is NOT one of those examples. Only three people scored a 3.0 or higher. Just as many people fataled this assignment; an all-time high for a class I taught. Not good.

Still, it's your first assignment in a compacted class. Plus, you have a rewrite opportunity that has the potential of substantially improving your grade. It's critical that we learn from this first go-around and make many of the errors one-time-only deals.

Lets look at some common problems:

>>> This is not a good place to fatal. There were a total of three fatals; one of which was a time fatal. Even excluding that one, I've never had more than one person fatal on any single out-of-class story assignment.

The fatals definitely fall under the "catchable" category. In one, the author misspelled the name of President Barack Obama. Not only is that such a well-known name, but the example of misspelling Obama's name is actually an example in your syllabus of what constitutes a fatal.

The second author had two fatals: first, you had a misspelling in a quote, using "their" instead of "there." Any change from a literal quote is a fatal.

Second, you misspelled a source's name, which should have been caught because you had the correct spelling on your source list. If you have two different spellings of one name, you know at least one has to be wrong. You need to notice such inconsistencies.

I suspect you may have come close to a third fatal. In one section, that same author referred to auto facture instead of auto factory. A factory is a place where things are made; facture is the process of how something is made. (Facture is the root of manufcture, for example.)

Why I suspect the use of facture may have been unintended is because in 21 years of writing and teaching, plus roughly 40 years of being a voracious reader, I've never come across the word ever used, in any way, at all.

I'll say this again: spell check will not catch instances where you misspell a word in which the misspelling creates a correctly-spelled but unintended word.

>>> Do your own work. There was a distinct lack of original reporting in many of your stories. Instead of calling or emailing people, instead you used Web site content or the reporting of other media.

Using such sources are acceptable either as secondary sourcing or as a last resort. They should not be used as primary sources. If you have one side of an issue interviewed in person and the other side you simply rely on such secondary sources, that is not reporting.

One story on the housing market cited ABC News and a Web report, but it didn't appear you got any data directly yourself. Neutral experts can direct you to such data. So can Google.

That is digging into one side of an issue and doing a lousy job of researching the other side. You lose the chance to discover things about the other side and to do a back-and-forth exchange where you learn of issues and perspectives and questions to ask the original side about. And that's not journalism.

And that leads to another common problem ...

>>> A lack of vision. Many of you hit hard one side of an issue, then touched on an opposing side, and then failed at all to look at other relevant perspectives. The latter is necessary in differentiating simple he-said she-said fight-enabling and true journalism that deconstructs an issue from various angles.

Many of you talked to people doing things, but not to people affected by things. Many of you talked to proponents and opponents, but not neutral experts who could help referee the opposing views.

Here are some examples:

>>> You don't consider who is affected. one story regarded STD among college students. You talked to college health officials and experts, but you failed to talk to the people affected: students. Do they rely on the health officials? Do they think the health institutions you highlighted are effective and useful? Do they even see STDs as a concern?

Another story dealt with shortages of prescription medicines. You talked to pharmacists. You cited federal regulators as your neutral expert, but instead of talking to them you jut referred to their Web site. You didn't at all appear to talk to drug manufacturers -- after all, they are the ones who are falling short in making drugs -- nor did you talk to those who are or could be impacted: patients!

Such examples went on and on. One story dealt with the housing market, but didn't quote a single home owner of home buyer. Another story regarded a municipal water park and talked to managers but never talked to those who paid for it and use it: taxpayers.

A story about plans to haul used nuclear generators down the St. Clair River talked to the power company planning to do it and even to a government official who has concerns about the plan, but never talked to are local residents and local officials who may have strong feelings about 16 radioactive generators sailing right by where they live.

>>> You had a lack of balance. One story on summer recreational programs allowed the managers of such programs to tout the benefits, but readers are fair to say managers will have a natural bias touting such programs; their paychecks depend on it.

Nowhere did you talk to a neutral expert -- perhaps a parks and recs prof -- on whether such programs are popular and whether people view them as much as a viable option to a real vacation as the managers do. Nor did you quote many ultimate judges of whether such programs are worth doing or equal to a more traditional getaway: area residents. The story was so one-sided, it essentially sounded like a press release rather than a news story.

>>> You needed wider perspective. Another story regarded an archaeological discovery my MSUers that you claimed would be a big help to history researchers. Well, of course MSUers would say their work is important. What about getting perspective from a researcher not from MSU?

One story concerned the Patriot Act. Your exploration of opposition rationale was far more detailed than that of proponents. You talked to an activist about why they hate the act, but you never talk to law enforcement official about why they like the act. At least you did cite a neutral expert: an MSU criminal justice prof.

>>> The lack of interviews pre-empted opportunities to catch potentially-misleading statements. The aquatic center story cited pool officials as saying the facility was covering operating costs. And that rang a huge bell for me.

Back in my Las Vegas days, I wrote that the Las Vegas Monorail was struggling. Monorail officials always tried to throw me under the bus, claiming they were making an operating profit; that is, they were bringing in enough in fares to cover what it cost to run the monorail every day.

The problem was, while fares covered operating costs, they did not cover capital costs; that is, paying back the money used to build the monorail. Saying you're covering operating costs is akin to saying your paycheck is covering all your bills, except your mortgage. Your bills minus your mortgage is your operating cost; your mortgage is your capital cost.

Now, how did I know this? It's not because I'm a fiscal genius. I flunked Econ 101 in college (though a lack of attendance probably had something to do with it). I knew that because I got a hold of a neutral expert -- in this case, a Wall Street bond analyst -- who highlighted that for me.

So I was able to write in 2007 -- on my next-to-last day at work -- that the monorail was on track to run out of cash reserves by 2010, a story that was immediately ripped by monorail officials who claimed I didn't know what I was talking about. By the way, the monorail filed for bankruptcy last year. And please note in the latter story how a monorail official is still insistent that the rail line is covering operating costs. Jeez, Louise ...

I didn't just take someone's word for it. I checked with neutral experts and I educated myself so I knew when I was being told the truth and when I was being misled.

>>> Finally, you told me but you didn't show me. It's not enough to lay out a point; you also have to show the proof and/or offer a translation.

You tell me in a nut graf that grads are fleeing Michigan, but it's not until the 27th graf do you offer data proving that point, via a moving company's study. Another nut graf notes more people are attending summer school at MSU, but it' not until graf eight you offer data from MSU enrollment data. You tell me HPV is MSU's most common STD, but you never say exactly what HPV is.

You tell me many students choose to live in the summer, but you never show me any statistics. What is the summer dorm population compared to the summer enrollment total? And how does that percentage compare to the regular school year?

In the drug shortage story, you say the shortages primarily revolve around injectables, but you never say what an injectable is, or what some examples of such drugs -- that readers may be familiar with -- are.

In a story about disaster planning, you tell me MSU has a plan, but you never detail what that plan entails: what kinds of scenarios it covers, and what it calls for students to do.

The summer programs story has an official telling you that summer sessions draw more people than during other parts of the year. Some numbers to nail that down would have been nice. You write about MIPs, but you never detail the consequences. Is it a felony or a misdemeanor? How much can you get fined? Can you go to jail?

Guys, we don't have a lot of time in this class to get these problems resolved. I wish we had more time, but we don't. But that's not an excuse for me to just say, "Oh well, too bad for you guys." We have to find a way to make this work, within the time restrictions we have. And we will.

But I need your help in helping you.

I urge you to act on the points made in this blog post and in whatever comments I made on your graded papers.

I urge EVERYONE to seriously consider a rewrite, as this (and each of the rest of the out-of-class stories) will have a significant impact on your final grade.

I urge you to take advantage of class times to ask questions asking me to explain concepts and strategies and to talk about how you could do better. I know no one likes asking what they may deem as a "stupid" question in class, but trust me, many of you face the same issues, and if we all ask questions (and get answers) as a group, we'll all do better, and do so more quickly.

I urge you to see me during my office hours to review your work and make sure you are utilizing good habits and avoiding bad ones. I will make office hours for you, if possible within my work schedule and needed for you to succeed.

I know this is going to mean a lot of work for you over the next three weeks. We have out-of-class stories and in-class work and multimedia stuff coming up. The next three weeks will be a bear, no matter what we do or don't do.

But we can make these next three weeks worth your time, by doing what we need to do to get the grade that truly reflects your ability. Everyone here is smart enough to get a solid grade in here. Now, we need to make sure that we connect that potential with demonstrating that ability.

Let's do this.